Laparoscopic cadaveric low-cost training model without establishment of pneumoperitoneum
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1679-9836.v102iespe-204475Keywords:
Laparoscopy, Cadaver, Education, Surgery, PneumoperitoneumAbstract
Laparoscopy consists of surgical access performed using diminutive incisions in the abdominal wall followed by the establishment of pneumoperitoneum, representing an advance in postoperative recovery compared to open surgery. Models of training in laparoscopic surgery were developed to accelerate the technique’s learning. The main ones are inanimate models, animated simulators, and virtual reality (VR). These models seek to allow surgeons in training to acquire basic skills in laparoscopy, such as hand-eye coordination, dexterity in using tweezers, and improvement of depth perception in two-dimensional (2D). The high costs of training models have led institutions and surgeons to look for less expensive models, such as training boxes and VR simulators. However, they do not offer the same learning experience as VLP training on pigs or corpses. Performing the pneumoperitoneum and using video set equipment is expensive. A polyethylene model was developed without establishing pneumoperitoneum to reduce these costs and the complexity of VLP training in cadavers.
Downloads
References
Harrell AG, Heniford BT. Minimally invasive abdominal surgery: lux et veritas past, present, and future. Am J Surg. 2005;190(2):239-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.05.019
Southern Surgeons Club. A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. New Engl J Med. 1991;324(16):1073-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199104183241601
Secin FP, Savage C, Abbou C, de La Taille A, Salomon L, Rassweiler J, et al. The Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: an International Multicenter Study. J Urol. 2010;184(6):2291-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.003
Kumar U, Gill IS. Learning curve in human laparoscopic surgery. Curr Urol Rep. 2006;7(2):120-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-006-0070-5
Manning RG, Aziz AQ. Should laparoscopic cholecystectomy be practiced in the developing world? Ann Surg. 2009;249(5):794-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a3eaa9
Stolzenburg J-U, Truss MC, Rabenalt R, Do M, Schwalenberg T, Katsakiori PF, et al. Training in laparoscopy. EAU-EBU Update Series. 2007;5(2):53-62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeus.2006.12.001
Ali MR, Mowery Y, Kaplan B, DeMaria EJ. Training the novice in laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(12):1732-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8850-6
Larsen CR, Oestergaard J, Ottesen BS, Soerensen JL. The efficacy of virtual reality simulation training in laparoscopy: a systematic review of randomized trials. Acta Obstetr Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(9):1015-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01482.x
Sharpe BA, MacHaidze Z, Ogan K. Randomized comparison of standard laparoscopic trainer to novel, at-home, low-cost, camera-less laparoscopic trainer. Urology. 2005;66(1):50-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.01.015
Khan ZA, Kamal N, Hameed A, Mahmood A, Zainab R, Sadia B, et al. SmartSIM - a virtual reality simulator for laparoscopy training using a generic physics engine. Int J Med Robotics Computer Assist Surg. 2016;13(3):e1771. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1771
Chandrasekera SK, Donohue JF, Orley D, Barber NJ, Shah N, Bishai PM, et al. Basic Laparoscopic surgical training: examination of a low-cost alternative. Eur Urol. 2006;50(6):1285-91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.05.052
Katz R, Hoznek A, Antiphon P, van Velthoven R, Delmas V, Abbou C-C. Cadaveric versus porcine models in urological laparoscopic training. Urol Int. 2003;71(3):310-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000072684
Lim CP, Roberts M, Chalhoub T, Waugh J, Delgaty L. Cadaveric surgery in core gynaecology training: a feasibility study. Gynecol Surg. 2018;15(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1034-0
Imakuma E, Ussami E, Meyer A. Laparoscopic training model using fresh human cadavers without the establishment of penumoperitoneum. J Minimal Access Surg. 2016;12(2):190. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.178519
Nickel F, Bintintan VV, Gehrig T, Kenngott HG, Fischer L, Gutt CN, et al. Virtual Reality Does Not Meet Expectations in a Pilot Study on Multimodal Laparoscopic Surgery Training. World J Surg. 2013;37(5):965-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-1963-3
Lamata P, Gómez EJ, Sánchez-Margallo FM, Lamata F, del Pozo F, Usón J. Tissue consistency perception in laparoscopy to define the level of fidelity in virtual reality simulation. Surg Endosc Other Intervent Techn. 2006;20(9):1368-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-9269-z
De Win G, Van Bruwaene S, Aggarwal R, Crea N, Zhang Z, De Ridder D, et al. Laparoscopy Training in Surgical Education: The Utility of Incorporating a Structured Preclinical Laparoscopy Course into the Traditional Apprenticeship Method. J Surg Educ. 2013;70(5):596-605. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.04.001
Mohammadi Y, Lerner MA, Sethi AS, Sundaram CP. Comparison of Laparoscopy Training Using the Box Trainer Versus the Virtual Trainer. JSLS. 2010;14(2):205-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.4293/108680810X12785289144115
Kirby TO, Numnum MT, Kilgore LC, Straughn MJ. A Prospective Evaluation of a Simulator-Based Laparoscopic Training Program for Gynecology Residents. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(2):343-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.08.005
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Caio Vinícius Suartz, Pedro Henrique Brito, Ricardo Zugaib Abdalla, Cristiano Gomes Mendes, Anuar Ibrahim Mitre, William Carlos Nahas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
